[XHR] Ignore didReceiveData when having a DataConsumerHandle.

[XHR] Ignore didReceiveData when having a DataConsumerHandle.

In [1], we will start dispatching the incoming data using
WebURLLoaderClient::didReceiveData even when we use WebDataConsumerHandle
in order to make Devtools work. As a result, the data will be delivered
twice. This CL makes DocumentThreadableLoader ignore such data.

1: https://codereview.chromium.org/1150033004/

BUG=480746
Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/blink?view=rev&revision=196048

[yhirano, 2015-05-26 03:45:42]

yhirano@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ tyoshino@chromium.org

[yhirano, 2015-05-26 06:01:18]

On 2015/05/26 03:45:42, yhirano wrote:

Sorry I updated the code after requesting review. PS1 modified XHR, but after
that I changed my mind and PS2 modifies DocumentThreadableLoader instead.

[tyoshino (SeeGerritForStatus), 2015-05-26 08:12:02]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1150413003/diff/20001/Source/core/loader/Docu...
File Source/core/loader/DocumentThreadableLoader.cpp (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1150413003/diff/20001/Source/core/loader/Docu...
Source/core/loader/DocumentThreadableLoader.cpp:484: return;
write the reason why this should be here, not in dataReceived, in the CL
description.

[yhirano, 2015-05-26 08:41:03]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1150413003/diff/20001/Source/core/loader/Docu...
File Source/core/loader/DocumentThreadableLoader.cpp (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1150413003/diff/20001/Source/core/loader/Docu...
Source/core/loader/DocumentThreadableLoader.cpp:484: return;
On 2015/05/26 08:12:01, tyoshino wrote:
> write the reason why this should be here, not in dataReceived, in the CL
> description.

Actually, I don't mind: either are OK. Do you think dataReceived is more
preferable?

[tyoshino (SeeGerritForStatus), 2015-05-28 05:29:56]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1150413003/diff/20001/Source/core/loader/Docu...
File Source/core/loader/DocumentThreadableLoader.cpp (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1150413003/diff/20001/Source/core/loader/Docu...
Source/core/loader/DocumentThreadableLoader.cpp:484: return;
On 2015/05/26 08:41:03, yhirano wrote:
> On 2015/05/26 08:12:01, tyoshino wrote:
> > write the reason why this should be here, not in dataReceived, in the CL
> > description.
> 
> Actually, I don't mind: either are OK. Do you think dataReceived is more
> preferable?

We have handleReceivedData() factored out as a function since it's common for
both sync and async XHR. We have handleResponse() for the same reason. It's good
to have the new code in responseReceived() since it's needed only for async
case. So, basically this code should also live in dataReceived() handler which
implements RawResourceClient.

[yhirano, 2015-05-28 05:44:38]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1150413003/diff/20001/Source/core/loader/Docu...
File Source/core/loader/DocumentThreadableLoader.cpp (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1150413003/diff/20001/Source/core/loader/Docu...
Source/core/loader/DocumentThreadableLoader.cpp:484: return;
On 2015/05/28 05:29:55, tyoshino wrote:
> On 2015/05/26 08:41:03, yhirano wrote:
> > On 2015/05/26 08:12:01, tyoshino wrote:
> > > write the reason why this should be here, not in dataReceived, in the CL
> > > description.
> > 
> > Actually, I don't mind: either are OK. Do you think dataReceived is more
> > preferable?
> 
> We have handleReceivedData() factored out as a function since it's common for
> both sync and async XHR. We have handleResponse() for the same reason. It's
good
> to have the new code in responseReceived() since it's needed only for async
> case. So, basically this code should also live in dataReceived() handler which
> implements RawResourceClient.

Done.

[tyoshino (SeeGerritForStatus), 2015-05-28 05:56:04]

lgtm

[yhirano, 2015-05-28 05:57:21]

yhirano@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ kouhei@chromium.org

[yhirano, 2015-05-28 05:57:22]

+kouhei for OWNER review.

[kouhei (in TOK), 2015-05-28 06:59:11]

lgtm

[yhirano, 2015-05-28 07:01:09]

The CQ bit was checked by yhirano@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-05-28 07:01:23]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1150413003/40001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-05-28 09:40:51]

Committed patchset #3 (id:40001) as
https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/blink?view=rev&revision=196048